Open debate gives hope for an open Parliament

THE heated debate between rival candidates for the presidency of the European Parliament was a refreshing start for the legislature elected after the 10-13 June polls, which hit a record low turnout. The head-to-head confrontation between the two main contenders for this post – Josep Borrell of Spain and Bronislaw Geremek of Poland – showed that Parliament can be a house for high politics. This is good news for the EU’s only elected institution.

Josep Borrell deserves some credit for being willing to take part in the debate. He did not need to: he is sure to land the post because he is supported by a coalition of the house’s two biggest parties, the Socialists and the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP-ED).

This “technical deal” under which Borrell will take over the Parliament’s presidency for two-and-a-half years and Hans-Gert Pöttering will take over in 2007 – was strongly criticised by Parliament’s smaller political parties. Borrell was given a torrid reception, forced to defend his candidature and the pact.

Most arguments against this deal are populist and can easily be refuted. The deal is defensible. The EPP-ED and the Socialists, the parties enjoying the largest support among voters – as the recent elections have confirmed – are entitled to join forces to support each others’ candidates for the presidency of the Parliament. Members of the two parties have broadly supported the deal – so it cannot be said that it was imposed on them by their respective leaders, eager to land the assembly’s top post.

Sadly, Parliament’s politics will become more boring and predictable if a “big coalition” of the largest parties shares the presidency of the Parliament. This would block access to the post for the leaders of smaller parties. The election of Liberal Pat Cox as president in 2002-04 was a refreshing experience of democracy, which broke apart the predictable succession of Socialist and EPP-ED candidates at the top of the assembly.

Where the deal is indefensible is in the damage it does to the image and visibility of Parliament. A voter who supported a Socialist candidate and rejected a Christian Democrat, now finds that this does not affect who holds power in Parliament: political enemies on the domestic scene are cosy bedfellows in the European Parliament where they support each other for important decisions.

Such deals risk exacerbating the electorate’s suspicions that little is at stake in these elections because they produce a melting pot where MEPs renounce their ideology.

They only reinforce people’s perception that it does not matter for whom they vote – or, indeed, whether they vote at all.

If Parliament is to be an arena for serious politics and important decisions, political coalitions based on common platforms and programmes should replace technical deals.

That would make the assembly more visible to the citizens. It would replace the presently blurred boundaries between political groups and programmes. In their stead would be clearer political alternatives, whether of Left, Right or Centre.

The lively discussion between Borrell and Geremek showed that the time has come for the election of the president of the European Parliament to be based on candidates’ credentials. MEPs ought to be electing the best person to be their president.

This newspaper hopes a similar debate might be organized in five years among rival candidates for the presidency of the European Commission, with MEPs as their audience. Heads of state and government should hand over to Parliament a shortlist of candidates to the succession of José Manuel Barroso. Parliament should organize hearings to verify the candidates’ credentials. The examination could be completed by a head-to-head presidential debate, which might enable MEPs to choose the best possible person for the job. President-elect Barroso might well be the best man for the job – his performances before Parliament’s political groups suggest the doubters might be wrong. But MEPs will never know, because they were not given the chance to compare him with other candidates. It was a missed opportunity.

The keynote speaker at the 20th anniversary celebration of the European Medicines Agency offered some challenges to conventional thinking about the next 20 years – including carefully calculated provocations of his hosts.